{¶
1} Defendant-appellant, Todd E. Miller, appeals from
the decision of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas
denying his most recent pro se post-sentence motion to
withdraw his guilty plea. For the reasons outlined below, we
affirm.

{¶
2} On January 30, 2014, the Clermont County Grand
Jury returned a four-count indictment charging Miller with,
among other things, illegal manufacture of drugs in violation
of R.C. 2925.04(A), a first-degree felony in accordance with
R.C. 2925.04(C)(3)(b). According to the bill of particulars,
the charge arose after the Clermont County Narcotics Unit
executed a search warrant at a residence located at 807
Greenwood Lane, Clermont County, Ohio, where they discovered
Miller engaged in the manufacturing of methamphetamine within
1000 feet of a school zone. At the time the search warrant
was executed, it is undisputed that 280 children were present
at that nearby school.

{¶
3} On February 7, 2014, Miller, represented by
counsel, filed a suggestion of incompetence requesting the
trial court to order a clinical examination of Miller to
determine his competence to stand trial. Several days later,
on February 11, 2014, Miller, again through counsel, filed a
motion requesting the trial court order a psychiatric
evaluation of Miller to determine his then present mental
condition. The following day, on February 12, 2014, the trial
court granted Miller's motion ordering a psychiatric
examination of Miller's present mental condition. The
trial court further ordered the examiner who conducted the
psychiatric examination to provide a written report providing
his or her opinion as to whether Miller was competent to
stand trial and, if not, whether Miller could be returned to
competency within one year.

{¶
4} On February 28, 2014, the trial court held a
hearing on the issue of Miller's competency to stand
trial. At this hearing, the parties stipulated to the
contents and the admissibility of a report submitted by Dr.
Emily Davis, Psy.D. a doctor with Summit Behavioral
Healthcare ("SBH"), that Miller was, at that time,
incompetent to stand trial. As a result, based on the
stipulation of the parties, the trial court found Miller was
not competent to stand trial. The trial court, however,
determined that there was a substantial probability that
Miller would become competent to stand trial within one year
if he was provided with an appropriate course of treatment.
Therefore, the trial court ordered Miller to undergo
treatment at SBH for a period not to exceed six months.

{¶
5} On April 17, 2014, the trial court received a
letter from SBH requesting authorization to involuntarily
medicate Miller in an effort to restore his competency to
stand trial. Approximately one week later, on April 23, 2014,
the trial court held a hearing on the matter. At this
hearing, the parties stipulated to a report from Dr.
Elizabeth Gilday, M.D., also a doctor with SBH, who noted
Miller's need to be medicated in order to regain his
competency to stand trial. As noted by the trial court in its
entry, at that hearing, Miller stipulated to the following:

[T]he defendant stipulated he is facing serious criminal
charges, that the medications would substantially likely
render the defendant competent to stand trial, that the
treatment is medically appropriate, and that the medication
is substantially unlikely to have side effects that would
interfere significantly with the defendant's ability to
assist counsel in his own defense, and thus undermine the
fairness of the trial. Further, in taking account of less
intrusive alternatives, the defendant stipulated that the
administration of the medication is necessary to further
important governmental trial-related interests.

{¶
6} Due to Miller's stipulations, which are
supported by the record, as well as Dr. Gilday's report
and testimony about the medications needed to restore
Miller's competency, the trial court granted SBH's
request to involuntarily medicate Miller with the specific
medications provided in Dr. Gilday's report should Miller
later refuse to the administration of those named
medications.

{¶
7} On July 3, 2014, the trial court held another
hearing on the issue of Miller's competency to stand
trial. At this hearing, the parties stipulated to the
contents and admissibility of a report by Dr. Charles Lee,
Ed.D, yet another doctor with SBH, that Miller's
competency to stand trial had successfully been restored. As
a result, the trial court found Miller was now competent to
stand trial. The trial court then ordered Miller returned to
SBH for the continued administration of his medications, or
other treatment, in order to maintain Miller's competency
until trial.

{¶
8} On August 25, 2014, instead of going to trial,
Miller entered into a plea agreement and pled guilty to
illegal manufacture of drugs in exchange for the remaining
charges being dismissed. After engaging Miller in a full
Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy, the trial court accepted
Miller's guilty plea upon finding he entered the plea
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Thereafter, on
October 1, 2014, the trial court sentenced Miller to serve a
mandatory term of seven years in prison and ordered him to
pay court costs. The trial court also suspended Miller's
driver's license for a period of three years and notified
him that he would be subject to a mandatory term of five
years of postrelease control following his release from
prison. Miller did not file an appeal from his conviction or
sentence.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;{&para;
9} Nearly a year later, on September 8, 2015, Miller
filed a pro se motion to dismiss all charges. In support of
this claim, Miller cited extensively to the Uniform
Commercial Code, the Congressional Act of 1871, and the Buck
Act of 1940, among others, alleging the trial court had no
jurisdiction over him because he was a sovereign citizen who
was not subject to prosecution by the state of Ohio.
Construing Miller's motion as a petition for
postconviction relief, the trial court denied Miller's
petition on November 4, 2015 upon ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.